which ssd: corsair nova 256gb $599 -or- intel x-25m g2 160gb $455?

I'm ordering a Sager 8760 and I have to choose whether to go with the Intel X-25m 160gb they offer for +$455 or get a Corsair Nova 256gb off Newegg for $599. I really want the larger size, but if the Intel is a much better ssd then I can live with 160gb and it's cheaper anyway.

Edit: hmm I can't edit the subject line unfortunately but I suppose the 240gb Corsair Force for $609 is probably better than the Nova 256gb. So it would be between that and the Intel.

This will be my first ssd, I know nothing about them other than that I don't like how slow my 7200rpm platter drive is.

Btw, if I get the Corsair, that would mean I order the Sager with a 7200rpm drive to move over to another laptop. I would use backup & restore to put the boot drive stuff on to the ssd. Is that a problem, to backup an OS on a platter drive and restore it to an ssd? Should I do a clean install instead? Or will Windows 7 auto detect the move to an ssd and adjust settings as needed automatically?

 

Sandforced based SSDs like Corsair Force and OCZ Vertex 2 are a bit faster than Intel G2.

I'd recommend getting something with a Sandforce controller.

There's a 160GB Force for about $449.

 

Sandforce or Intel should be the only two SSDs you should really consider.

Size/price would be the determining factors if you should go sandforce or intel. Both are very fast, and in your laptop you would be hard pressed to notice a real world difference between the two. That being said, sandforce is newer, faster, and more popular atm, but intel is has a longer operating history and outside of a firmware upgrade snafu has proven EXTREMELY EXTREMELY reliable. Sandforce is newer and its reliability is still being proven.

 

Thanks guys, I was really hoping someone would reply this morning so I could click my order. Been lurking here a while and if Phil says Sandforce controller is good, I'm comfortable buying. The reliability issue irev raises is something to keep in mind but $600, while not change, isn't so bad to risk I don't think; you'd risk that much on a good looking but unproven netbook for example. Bit exciting lol, first ssd order.

 

At your price range, I'd also consider the 256GB Crucial C300 RealSSD; which is $579 from Newegg. From what I've seen, the Marvel controller that it uses performs a bit better than the Sandforce.

It seems like the "fastest" SSD out at the moment, plus it's SATA III capable.

 

The Crucial C300 is very fast, but the Sandforce drives are slightly faster on a SATA II controller.

I've tested this myself and the review on Storagereview confirms this. (look for the real world benchmarks)

That said, I do have a Crucial C300 in my own notebook.

 

Dang someone should have closed this thread before you guys chucked that pebble in my pond lol. Took me forever just to narrow it down to Corsair and Intel. (OCZ is expensive...)

I checked out the Storagereview art. I have a few days to think about this since the Sager will take a while to arrive. I pay $30 less for 16 extra gigs of space, and get very slightly less performance, with the Crucial. I have no idea what's better lol, I might flip a coin.

 

If you look at the real world benchmarks by Storagereview the difference isn't that small. The green bars are the C300 on SATA II, the blue bars are the Corsair Force 120. The Corsair Force 240 is faster than the 120.

 

The C300 is closer on some benches than others, but yeah, it looks stark on those. I do get that you need a sata 6 to get your money's worth out of it. Is sata 3 not worth investing in now though? For $600 I could live with less perf now for an ssd that would perform better on a sata 6 rig, if that shortly becomes the standard. Since the 8760 doesn't have usb 3 I'd most likely upgrade in 2-3 years tops.

I also wonder if the 240 gb Corsair has the same characteristics of the F120 that is reviewed?

 

Corsair F240 should be faster than F120 as far as I know.

Well yeah for the future the C300 is a better choice. But I think in 2-3 years you can get much better SSDs. You'll be looking at Intel G5

 

Interesting, it seems the Sandforce fairs a bit better than I thought.

 

The problem is almost every review comes to a different conclusion. And none of these reviews are done on a notebook, they're all on desktops.

I did some benchmarking myself on my own notebook. Turns out the C300 and Sandforce perform very similar with single tasks. With heavier multi tasking the Sandforce wins.

 

But realistically, for how much ssds cost, if you splurge for one, aren't you expecting to skip a generation or two of advances? With either the C300 or the Corsair Force, if I spend $600 now, I'm not upgrading for even dramatically better performance for several years. So either of these, I fully expect to use it in my next notebook.

So with that consideration in mind -- which? The better perf now of a sata 3 Corsair Force, or the worse perf now of a slightly cheaper and slightly bigger sata 6 C300?

Sometimes I wish this all worked old school Soviet style and there's no choice, only a plain white box labeled SSD.

 

Well you're getting a brand new top performance notebook now so it makes sense to get the best performing SSD now, in my opinion.

But a C300 won't disappoint you. You can get them cheaper on Ebay:
NEW! 256GB Crucial RealSSD C300

 

Yeah that does seem the way to go. Thanks for all your help.

 

i totally agree... i'm planning to get one too... on the market , its the best SSD IMO..

 

I have not tried a C300, but I do have a Sandforce based SSD (100GB Inferno).

Compared to the Intel G2 160GB in the exact same system with the exact same setup (80GB filled) the Inferno is the first and only drive that performs at least as good (overall) as a mechanical HD in my VAIO (currently using a Momentus XT hybrid 500GB).

This is not to say I'm entirely happy with its performance in an Asus U30Jc with 8GB of RAM, but just happy enough to keep it because of the better shock protection the SSD gives the notebook (I take it with me everywhere).

As to your not being happy with your 7200 RPM drive - have you tried a Seagate Momentus XT hybrid drive yet? In a lower end system the XT is as fast or faster (sometimes painfully FASTER) in normal use than the Inferno is in a much better platform (i3 with identical O/S and software installs and both 8GB RAM).

What I would do in your situation is buy the Sager with two HD's installed and wait until SSD's really hit prime time. In the meantime, one or two XT's in your Sager will give you enough oomph in your O/S experience that you will be able to comfortably wait until the real SSD's come out.

Too many people shouting SSD's are the next big thing - they will be, but they're not there yet.

Don't believe in benchmarks. An SSD that does something (4K r r/w for example) 100 times faster than a mechanical does not make that SSD fast(er). Look at the time it takes to complete actual tasks - a few seconds is not worth paying 10x the price of a mechanical HD (for the same storage space).

If you do end up going this route (with either an SSD or an XT), then I highly recommend you do a clean install on the new HD. Windows can only set itself up accordingly with a proper, clean install (with no other partitions on the new drive, initially).

Good luck.